Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton Trails Giuliani, Barely Leads Thompson (Nov 23 Rasmussen poll)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:22 PM
Original message
Clinton Trails Giuliani, Barely Leads Thompson (Nov 23 Rasmussen poll)
Friday, November 23, 2007

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) enjoying a modest four-point lead of 46% to 42% over Senator Hillary Clinton (D) (see crosstabs). That’s the second time in the last three Rasmussen Reports election polls that Giuliani has held the advantage over Clinton.

The survey also found Clinton with a very slight edge over former Senator Fred Thompson (R), 46% to 44%. Both Republicans are doing better against Clinton than they did in the previous Rasmussen Reports survey.

The former First Lady has recently been the subject of more sustained and concerted attacks from other Democratic candidates seeking their party’s nomination. In addition to losing ground in the national match-ups with Giuliani and Thompson, Clinton now trails four Republican hopefuls in the pivotal state of Florida.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson


more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Weird. Rudy Garland is declining among Republicans. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. The Obama/Edwards/GOP attacks are working.
And I'm sure they're proud of themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:26 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ras's explanation is clear
Since April, Giuliani has led Clinton several times in Rasmussen Reports national polling, but usually by no more than three percentage points. In mid-August he led by seven, but by September he was trailing. On October 9 Giuliani trailed Clinton 41% to 48%. In the next poll he managed to edge out Clinton by two points, but on November 11 he was again trailing, by six (see history).

Individual polls can sometimes overstate volatility in a race, especially when the results carry a four percentage point margin of sampling error. One way of addressing this is to look at a rolling-average of three consecutive polls. Using this approach, Clinton and Giuliani have both been within two points of the 45% mark for thirteen consecutive polls dating back to May 1, 2007. The candidates have been within two points of each other on eight of those thirteen surveys.

Currently, the three-poll rolling average shows Clinton and Giuliani tied at 45%. Clinton had held the advantage in the last four updates of the three-poll rolling average. At the beginning of the campaign, Giuliani had the advantage--during the first eight sets of three-poll averages, Giuliani was “ahead” in seven and tied with Clinton in the eighth."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. However You Slice the Numbers, IT'S BAD
In a year when the incumbent pResident is polling around 24%
and people want a Democrat to replace him, by double-digit margins,
our front-runner is tied with their front-runner, and barely ahead of the barely-alive Thompson!
Even that one would still be close enough to steal.

Surely this must be setting off alarm bells at Democratic headquarters!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Our front runner?
he he

who has never consistantly beaten all repub candidates in polling. But the 6pm news says so, so its true ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #10
29. Neither of the party's front-runners is their strongest candidate.
Compare the numbers for Edwards to those of Hillary
Clinton 42% Giuliani 46% 4 points spread for Giuliani
Edwards 44% Giuliani 45% 1 point spread for Giuliani

Clinton 46% Huckabee 43% 3 point spread for Hillary
Edwards 50% Huckabee 33% 17 point spread for Edwards

Clinton 45% McCain 47% 2 point spread for McCain
Edwards 47% McCain 38% 9 point spread for Edwards

Clinton 47% Romney 42% 5 point spread for Hillary
Edwards 50% Romney 34% 16 point spread for Edwards

Clinton 46% Thompson 44% 2 point spread for Hillary
Edwards 48% Thompson 39% 9 point spread for Edwards

Edwards has consistently polled better against the Republicans than has Hillary.
The most interesting thing to me is that the Republicans always poll lower against Edwards than against Hillary. Edwards is not just more likely to win than Hillary. He is likely to win by larger margins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. Um, I thought Ras was saying Edwards beats all repubs in a general election
why is that worthy of alarm bells ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. Correct., thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Too close for comfort. WAY too close.
And the only reason she's edging out Thompson is because she has more name recognition.

NOT GOOD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
4. Much ado about nothing --
-- The campaign battles between the nominees hasn't even started yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. The Hillary Campaign Gaggle: Much Ado about NOTHING!
She can't win. Period.

So why is she running?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maddiejoan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. Why does anyone run for President?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. Oh fachrissake. Don't be foolish. Rasmussen reports are WACKILY biased.
Of course, and mind you, I'm undecided--all the Clinton haters will be thrilled at this result and cheer it on, quite mindlessly. Look at who cheers them, on their OWN site? Bill Fucking Frist, that wingnut Kudlow from CNBC....

A few cites on our buddies at Rasmussen--see, they're reliable--reliably SKEWED to the GOP:

    Sheppard has been promoting his new favorite pollster, Rasmussen Reports. In a Sept. 17 post citing a Rasmussen poll putting President Bush's approval rating several points higher than the record-low ratings cited by other pollsters, Sheppard claimed that "few media outlets pay attention to the poll conducted on a daily basis by Rasmussen Reports. Could it be that Rasmussen's numbers don't mirror the negativity of the other polling groups?" In a Sept. 18 post, Sheppard claims that "regardless of how accurately Rasmussen Reports predicted the 2004 election results, America's media continue to ignore their polling data."

    http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2005/newsbust.html

    Rasmussen also has a fairly good record, but seems to have a mild but consistent GOP bias. (If you calibrate Rasmussen's poll by comparing their daily polls of Bush's popularity with those of most other pollsters in the last few days, you reach the conclusion that right now the American people are dividied virtually evenly on whether they favor Feingold's censure measure.)
    http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2006/03/polls_on_censur.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Ras is biased ..yes.. but has good methodology and is consistant
SO Ras makes for a good steady rudder. And that has its uses. As you can see from the OP. Nothing wrong with using Ras AS A TOOL.... IS THERE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. As a biased tool--one that is consistently incorrect and favors the GOP and their agenda.
That's like saying "Say, Mrs. Brown makes cookies, and they taste like shit, but they taste, quite reliably, like the EXACT same shit every time!!! She sure is accurate and consistent with that lousy recipe! Let's give her some credit!!!"

If your goal is to suggest, perhaps unreliably and falsely, that Clinton is a weak candidate against Giuliani, well, Ras is a wonderful "tool." But only a 'tool' would take what they say without a massive chunk o'salt.

They have an agenda, and it shows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #15
33. good of you to stay on message
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I don't have a "message" or, for that matter, a candidate.
But that's always a good complaint when you run out of gas, I suppose.

If they were shopping the same bullshit about any other Democrat, as they often do, I'd pipe up to defend that individual, too.

My "message" therefore, is that Rasmussen has their GOP hand in the GOP dog's mouth, and they skew everything in favor in the GOP, and we know this by comparing their assertions to their results.

If you believe Rasmussen, quite frankly, then you will have to believe that Bush is NOT the most unpopular president in the modern era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Look, Ras's state level polls are one thing, his national polls are another
if you posted that, sorry, I missed it. Thats Ras's reputation, his state polls are not consistent with his national polls. If you didnt know that then its time to check it out, or put away the broad brush.

1)Ok, let me ask this... Ras says Edwards beats all repubs, whats your take on that ?

2)Ras says in every poll that includes HRC & Edwards, JE wins. Ditto.

....if you have never dove into the tabs on a poll, and looked at the breakdowns, methodology etc, I would ask that you keep you baseball bat in check. Many pollsters dont even release this info, not even in an executive summary. And then when a follow up poll is done a month later said pollster changes methodology.

I take it you dont look into the details to this level do you ?

If you believe Rasmussen, quite frankly, then you will have to believe that Bush is NOT the most unpopular president in the modern era.

Again, comparing Ras's state level polls with his national polls is asinine, Ras was fairly spot on in the DEM win in '06, look it up if want.

Ras had Tester up in Montana on Oct 29th, By the way, Tester won.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/senate_races/montana_senate_burns_r_trailing_tester_d_by_two

Oct 31st Webb is up, Webb won

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/senate_races/virginia_senate_webb_d_now_leading_allen_r

In fact Ras was very close on the senate balance of power

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2006/senate_balance_of_power_2006/senate_balance_of_power_tennessee_and_montana_now_toss_ups

Menendez won by 8, Ras said 5 4 days before the election. Many polls has Kean winning just weeks before election day. We had a tremendous ground game in NJ, we put 14,000 canvassers out on election day, this pushed the DEM vote out, a good ground game is worth 4 to 6 points. Which is why Menendez stretched the lead out in the final days. Some thought Kean would win, but not Ras.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/senate_races/new_jersey_senate_menendez_now_up_by_5



Know your enemy, down to the cuticles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 03:41 AM
Response to Reply #35
45. I don't believe ANYTHING they say. They're always "off to the side."
The old "Fool me once, shame on you--fool me twice, shame on me" adage applies.

As for Tester, of COURSE Tester won. There was no way he could lose--that flat-top ad assured him. That wasn't rocket science, that was a foregone conclusion. He OWNED the 'likeability factor' for that election.

And the minute George Feeeelix Macacawitz Allen opened his mouth to that kid of southwest asian heritage, Webb was the winner. Everyone with a brain knew that, especially when all those 'knicker' comments ole Feeeeelix made in his younger years started coming out.

Don't 'credit' Rasmussen for reporting the fucking obvious.

And Kean? The minute that daddy jumped in to try to save the boy, fuggedaboutit. TOAST!

You know, a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sure, Rasmussen is going to play it straight when the GOP is fucked, anyway. That's how they gain a shred of credibility, and con people that they aren't as skewed as they really are.

These contests were close, but they weren't that close. And the wind was at the backs of all the winners coming down to the wire.

See, I DO know the enemy. And I totally discount the halfassed numbers they put out, because they're just...shit. That may be a broad brush, but it's USEFUL, as broad brushes are when you're trying to cover up a lot of fetid crap in a hurry.

When you have limited time and need good numbers, you don't want to bother with those jerks, because their info is, and always has been, suspect.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skipos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #5
18. I agree that their Bush fav/unfavs are skewed, but their election polls are usually accurate
Their senate and gov polls from 07, 06 and 05 where spot on.

Plus, they have had plenty of polls with Hillary on top. I don't think there is an agenda here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Well, think about it--that Kerry election was stolen, so if they called that
ya gotta wonder....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. you cant compare Ras's state level polls with his national polls
if you didnt know that you should.

Look at my comment #35, Ras was very close to the DEM wins in the US senate only a few days out from the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
32. RepiglickinAssMuffin is Biased, But So Are the Voting Machinez
If it's that close, we lose.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #32
44. Ras 's national polls suck, his state level polls are better
look @ comment #35 for details and links.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
47. More on Rasmussen's Republican bias.
Edited on Sun Nov-25-07 07:54 AM by Perry Logan
Rasmussen is a Republican firm that regularly asks slanted questions and produces pro-Republican results through a questionable poll weighting method.

Rasmussen regularly has the wildest outliers of all on Bush job approval (typically about 5-7% higher than the average of other polls).

From the start of 2005, Rasmussen has weighted to make Rep and Dem party ID equal at 37%. Yet his table of unweighted data since start 2004 shows that in every month, the Dem figure exceeded the Rep figure, often significantly. This weighting introduces a persistent bias which can be quantified if you know the cross-tab data.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/17/11424/8443
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Yep. I understand they've recently 'adjusted' their weighting, but
they're weighting using preferences that were valid before BushCo really hit the toilet--so they're still "off."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Gee if Hillary is that low in the polls than Obama must not even register.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
7. We can save ourselves the grief, by nominating someone else.
Hillary can't win. Her vulnerabilities against a Ghouliani are readily apparent. And if she's only barely ahead of a lousy candidate like Fraud Thompson, that shows how unelectable she is in a general.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. where are the other dems in comparison?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyTiedye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Awful. We Need to DRAFT GORE
DRAFT GORE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Carrieyazel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. In past head to head polls, Obama and Edwards do somewhat better than Hillary
But still not where we want our candidate to be. But I don't think Bill Richardson vs. GOP candidate has ever been polled. He would do the best against any GOP candidate in a head to head matchup.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
41. good question, follow the link Edwards is doing very well in Iowa
Edited on Sat Nov-24-07 11:09 PM by FogerRox
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
42. Follow the link, the poll did not include other DEMS
Its a Clinton and Giuliani matchup poll. ANd its a national poll which Ras has a bad rep with, if it was a state level poll that would be different.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Of course she polls lousy.....50% of Americans would not even consider voting for Hillary
No friggin way she can win. What are we thinking, even having her as a choice? Do we WANT to lose subconsciously? Maybe so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlueStater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 03:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
46. This country is going to need one giant barf bag if the election is Hillary vs. the Ghoul
I truly don't get it. This country is in a sad state when it has to look to a punk like Rudy for leadership.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ben_meyers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
13. With all the crap the repubs have pulled
a dead dog with a D behind its name should out poll any of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. The Dead Dog would beat Hillary by a wide margin
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sarah Ibarruri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. Senator Clinton is another mistake the Democrats are about to make. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TeamJordan23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. ditto. when will this party ever figure out how to win. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. that leaves 10% undecided and it THEY who will determine the winner!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Basileus Basileon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
22. Clinton is showing a lot more wear from attacks than I would have expected.
As long as she holds the lead, that's worrisome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. She will be third in Iowa, and fade away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
28. they need to poll how others do against the republicans and not just Hillary
there are more candidates in the race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #28
39. Exactly, you cant compare a poll with only Obama & Clinton vs repubs
with a poll that has Edwards, Obama & CLinton vs the repubs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-23-07 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. Real Clear Politics is better for polling data imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FogerRox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Except that RCP skips Edwards in some polls, just read the link you provided
That sort of fucks up any real methodology they might have used. RCP is crap by the way. They use just about anybodies polls and treat them all equal, regardless of proprietary or published poll breakdowns. The rolling average is a good idea, if you ask the same question each month, using the same exact methodology each time. Rolling averages with different polls is bullshit. You wouldnt do that with your kids medicine, so why now.

In fact RCP shows that not all pollsters even include Edwards, now thats fucked up, as it skews RCP's entire effort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-24-07 11:12 PM
Response to Original message
43. Poll #374 which shows us Hillary can't win.
And that's pretty much the only reason her supporters have for backing her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-25-07 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #43
48. Hillary can't lose. Here's her excellent record...
Senator Clinton supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Trust for Historic Preservation 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Education Association 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the League of Conservation Voters 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Children's Defense Fund 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Association of University Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Organization for Women 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 91 percent in 2006.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 100 percent in 2005

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence 100 percent from 1988-2003 (Senate) or 1991-2003 (House).

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Public Health Association 80 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Service Employees International Union 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Auto Workers 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the AFL-CIO 93 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers 84 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Worker 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees 88 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the American Federation of Government Employees 83 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the National Committee for an Effective Congress 95 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Americans for Democratic Action 100 percent in 2005.

According to the National Journal - Composite Liberal Score's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on economic, defense and foreign policy issues than 80 percent of the Senators.

According to the National Journal - Liberal on Social Policy's calculations, in 2005, Senator Clinton voted more liberal on social policy issues than 83 percent of the Senators.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Alliance for Retired Americans 100 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92 percent in 2005.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Bread for the World 100 percent in 2003-2004.

Senator Clinton supported the interests of the The Partnership for the Homeless 100 percent in 2003-2004.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

She was promoting universal coverage before it was cool. Furthermore she helped to create the SCHIP program. And most importantly she was dead on in the debate the other week where she said political will was the most important thing needed to push health care reform through and we know without a doubt she has that.

She has fougt unrelentingly for a woman's right to choose as well as women's rights both domestically and abroad

Create a Strategic Energy Fund - Hillary has proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would inject $50 billion into research, development and deployment of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, ethanol and other homegrown biofuels. Hillary's proposal would give oil companies a choice: invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund. Hillary's proposal would also eliminate oil company tax breaks and make sure that oil companies pay their fair share for drilling on public lands. Instead of sending billions of dollars to the Middle East for their oil, Hillary's proposal will create a new clean energy industry in America and create tens of thousands of jobs here.

Champion a Market-Based "Cap and Trade" Approach - Hillary supports a market-based, cap and trade approach to reducing carbon emissions and fight global warming. This approach was used successfully to limit sulfur dioxide and reduce levels of acid rain in the 1990s. By capping the amount of emissions in the environment and allowing corporations to buy and sell permits, this approach offers corporations a flexible, cost-efficient method to do their share to reduce emissions and combat global warming. The program will reduce emissions, drive the development of clean technologies, and create a market for projects that store carbon dioxide.

20% Renewable Electricity Standard by 2020 - Hillary believes we need to shift our reliance on high carbon electricity sources to low-carbon electricity sources by investing in renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind. As President, she'll work to require power companies to obtain 20 percent of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

Make Federal Buildings Carbon Neutral - Hillary believes that the federal government should lead the way in reducing carbon emissions from buildings. Buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, and the federal government owns or leases more than 500,000. Hillary would require all federal buildings to steadily increase the use of green design principles, energy efficient technologies, and to generate energy on-site from solar and other renewable sources. By 2030, all new federal buildings and major renovations would be carbon neutral, helping to fight global warming and cutting the $5.6 billion that the federal government spends each year on heating, cooling and lighting.

Protecting Against Exposure to Toxic Chemicals - Hillary wants to make the products we use safer, especially for children. There are tens of thousands of chemicals used in the U.S. and hundreds of new chemicals introduced each year, but little health testing is conducted for many of them. Hillary would require chemical companies to prove that new chemicals are safe before they are put on the market, and would set more stringent exposure standards for kids. She would also create a "priority list" of existing chemicals and require testing to make sure they are safe. To improve our understanding of the links between chemicals and diseases like cancer, Hillary would create an "environmental health tracking network" that ties together information about pollution and chronic diseases.

Hillary's Record

In the White House, Hillary led efforts to make adoption easier, to expand early learning and child care, to increase funding for breast cancer research, and to help veterans suffering from Gulf War syndrome who had too often been ignored in the past. She helped launch a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy and helped create the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, which moved children from foster care to adoption more quickly and the number of children who have moved out of foster care into adoption has increased dramatically.

She was instrumental in designing and championing the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided millions of children with health insurance. She battled the big drug companies to force them to test their drugs for children and to make sure all kids get the immunizations they need through the Vaccines for Children Program. Immunization rates dramatically improved after the program launched.

Hillary has been a leading member of the Environment and Public Works Committee since she was elected to the Senate. Today, she chairs the Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee and in that capacity has promoted legislation to evaluate and protect against the impact of environmental pollutants on people's health and clean up toxic waste.

Global warming and Clean Air
Spoken out forcefully about the need to tackle global warming in hearings, speeches, rallies and on the Senate floor and co-sponsored "cap and trade" legislation.
Worked to reduce air pollution that causes asthma and other respiratory diseases by writing and helping to pass new laws to clean up exhaust from school buses, and other diesel-powered equipment.
Supported legislation to reduce pollution from power plants, including harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide - emissions that contribute to poor air quality, smog, acid rain, global warming, and mercury contamination of fish.
Aggressively fought the Bush Administration's ill-advised attempts to weaken clean air laws.

Improving Water Quality and Protecting Drinking Water
Helped to overturn the Bush Administration's attempt to allow more arsenic in drinking water.
Cosponsored legislation to protect lakes, rivers and coastal waters by fighting the spread of destructive invasive species, such as the zebra mussel.
Helped ot pass new clean water laws, including measures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.

Protecting Public Lands
Fought oil company efforts to pen the Artic Wildlife Refuge in Alask and Pacific and Atlantic coastal waters to drilling.
Cosponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act, which prohibits road construction and logging in unspoiled, roadless areas of the National Forest System, and voted for additional funding and manpower to combat forest fires in the west.

Reducing Dangerous Chemicals and Cleaning Up Hazardous Waste
Supported legislation to restore the "polluter pays" principle by reinstating a chemical company fee to fund cleanups of highly contaminated "Superfund" waste sites.
Cosponsored the "kids-Safe Chemical Act," which requires chemical companies to provide health and safety before putting new chemicals in consumer products.
Proposed legislation to create an environmental health tracking network to enable us to better understand the impact of environmental hazards on human health and well-being.

Tackling the Toxic Legacy of 9/11
Pushed for health care benefits for first responders, residents and others whose health has been impacted from breathing the toxic dust and smoke in New York City after 9/11.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/20/134810/677

Hillary Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom she had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 through the end of 1981. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

Following the November 1978 election of her husband as Governor of Arkansas, Clinton became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years. Bill appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

Hillary Clinton chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992, where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. One of the most important initiatives of the entire Clinton governorship, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association to put mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size in place. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.

And a bit of stuff from the White House years:

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.<124> She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.<125> She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.<43> The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.<43> Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.<43> In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.<43> As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House Conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),<126> Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),<127> and Children and Adolescents (2000),<128> and the first-ever White House Conferences on Teenagers (2000)<129> and Philanthropy (1999).<130>

Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

"...Hillary Clinton traveled to over eighty countries during this time,<131> breaking the mark for most-travelled First Lady held by Pat Nixon.<132> In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries..."

More:
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/israel/index.cfm
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/darfur


The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%
easures to protect New York City's water supplies and clean up Long Island Sound.
˜Rasmussen is a Republican firm that regularly asks slanted questions and produces pro-Republican results through a questionable poll weighting method.

Rasmussen regularly has the wildest outliers of all on Bush job approval (typically about 5-7% higher than the average of other polls).

From the start of 2005, Rasmussen has weighted to make Rep and Dem party ID equal at 37%. Yet his table of unweighted data since start 2004 shows that in every month, the Dem figure exceeded the Rep figure, often significantly. This weighting introduces a persistent bias which can be quantified if you know the cross-tab data.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/3/17/11424/8443
tself.<133> She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.<134><135> She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative spo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC